Stupid Ways the Government is Trying to Screw the Internet

[BTGBullseye]

@Michael Archer's W.O.T.:

 

Blatant trolling isn't helping.

[Axeldeath]

@Michael Archer's W.O.T.:

 

Blatant trolling isn't helping.

 

It's funny because that's exactly what you're doing right now.

[BTGBullseye]

And so is the US government. (only difference is that they can get their lies put into a law)

[Delta 757]

Well fuck. CISPA was just passed by the House.

 

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120426/14505718671/insanity-cispa-just-got-way-worse-then-passed-rushed-vote.shtml

 

Things aren't looking good.

[Michael Archer]

LOL, Americans, your country is really declining. I shouldn't laugh though, it's only a matter of time before Canada follows suit.

[Doublenature]

The part I still dont understand is the fact that a law that passes in the U.S applies in europe(?!?!)

[Ross Scott]

I actually don't believe that's their intent. Personally, I don't believe that the RIAA is thinking "we're supporting SOPA, because we want to take over the Internet, and thus, THE WORLD!" I think that they're just fed up that Congress isn't taking harsher action against pirates. Now, whether Congress responded appropriately, that's what this thread is about.

My point was that when you can in essence bribe chunks of congress to pass laws, especially when it's in opposition to the majority of your constituents, that's not democracy. That's what I mean by overstepping authority, regardless of their intent and implementation.

 

When you put it as, "they sued a person who made an illegal copy of copyrighted material without the owner's express permission," it sounds better.

Except that in the case of the grandmother, the computerless family, the dead person, and many others, that's a false statement. My point here was that the RIAA has a long history of abusing what authority they do have.

 

No, but you do have the right that if, you find probable cause, to obtain a search warrant, and for the government to raid the house, and for the person to stand trial for what they've done.

Actually I don't, but the police do. And the key words there are PROBABLE CAUSE, not "suspicion based on automated algorithm search"

 

It's true that there's a risk to damaging reputable sites, but I don't want to go there, since I feel this is kind of like asking, "We shouldn't outlaw X, because legitimate people may go to jail."

No, that's the completely wrong analogy. Do you recognize the difference between making something illegal versus how that law is enforced? This bill was not about making piracy illegal or not. A better analogy would be "We already know X is illegal, and it's likely some X activity is going on in this neighborhood, so we should arrest everyone on the block. Some of the innocents will be found guilty and imprisoned unless they have money or good legal assistance, and some of the guilty may get caught, it's hard to say"

 

The part I still dont understand is the fact that a law that passes in the U.S applies in europe(?!?!)

It doesn't directly, but it establishes a precedent which is then used to wield influence. Here's an explanation of one of the more recent examples, where the USA put pressure on Spain to pass a SOPA-like law.

 

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/wikileaks_proves_us_forced_spain_to_adopt_sopa-sty.php

 

It's basically a form of blackmail, just at a macro level.

[Doublenature]

Ah, thanks for explaining it a little more. (No time to fix the quotes)